Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Motivation, instructional design, flow, and academic achievement at a Korean online university: a structural equation modeling study

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the structural relationships among self-efficacy, intrinsic value, test anxiety, instructional design, flow, and achievement among students at a Korean online university. To address research questions, the researchers administered online surveys to 963 college students at an online university in Korea enrolled in a Computer Application course. Structural equation modeling was conducted to investigate the structural relationships among the variables. Findings indicated that (1) self-efficacy and instructional design had statistically significant direct effects on flow, (2) self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and flow had statistically significant direct effects on achievement, and (3) flow mediates self-efficacy and achievement, and instructional design and achievement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and the motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Gorokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccio, S., Reeve, C. L., & Winford, E. C. (2012). Text anxiety on cognitive ability test can result in differential predictive validity of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 497–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2012). Characteristics of Instructional Design Models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 8–16). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • California State University (n.d.). Rubric for Online Instruction. Retrieved 15 May 2013. http://www.csuchico.edu/roi/the_rubric.shtml

  • Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cha, S., & Kim, I. (2008). Study on the relation between test anxiety, coping strategy and achievement in mathematics. Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M.-H., & Jonassen, D. (2009). Development of the human interaction dimension of the Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire in asynchronous online learning environments. Educational Psychology, 29, 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., Newall, N. E., & Pekrun, R. (2008). Individual differences in achievement goals: A longitudinal study of cognitive, emotional, and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 584–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E-learning white paper. (2013). 2012 E-learning industry status report. Korea, Seoul: Korea National IT Industry Promotion Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S. B., & Arbaugh, J. B (Eds) (2011). Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in E-Learning: An introduction to empirical research. Information Science Reference.

  • Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human–computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore, P. A, Jr. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 92–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. T., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harroff, P., & Valentine, T. (2006). Dimensions of program quality in web-based adult education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among learner, task and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy in the context of online learning environments: A review of the literature and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3–4), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.

  • Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Kim, B. (2009). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joo, Y. J., & Kim, E. (2004). The development of student ratings to evaluate course in cyber university. Ewha Journal of Educational Research, 35(2), 1–21.

  • Joo, Y. J., Kim, N., & Jo, H. (2008). Test development and verifying the validity and reliability for measuring a effectiveness of e-learning course in cyber university. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 12(1), 109–120.

  • Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, S. M. (2012). A model for predicting flow and achievement in corporate e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 313–325.

  • Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, K. (2005). Participatory multimedia learning: Engaging learner. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 303–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Park, S. W., & Cozart, J. (2014). Affective and motivational factors of online math learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 757–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, D., & Wager, W. W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23(3), 144–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., & Yang, Y. (2002). Development of a students’ evaluation instrument for web-based course. Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 175–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C. (2001). The development and effects of a web-based self-regulated learning support system. Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 53–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, L. G., & Sarason, S. B. (1952). The effect of differential instructions on anxiety and learning. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 47(2), 166–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 794–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and enhanced subjective experience: Examining ‘short’ and ‘core’ flow in diverse performance domains. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, S. B. (2009). Understanding and application of structural equation modeling. Seoul, South Korea: Hakjisa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, L. V., Wu, S. S., & Finnegan, C. L. (2005). Predicting retention in online general education courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks-Stamm, E. J., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Implementation intentions and test anxiety: Shielding academic performance from distraction. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 30–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. (2006). The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 566–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, D., Cho, M.-H., Tsai, C.-L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. Internet and Higher Education., 19, 10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, N. (2006). Online learner’s ‘flow’ experience: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 705–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: The role of perceived control in children’s engagement and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, I., & Park, S. (2000). A study on the relationships of goal orientation, self-regulated learning, and academic achievement. Journal of Education Psychology, 14(2), 29–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 34(4), 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., Tzeng, Y. L., & Huang, Y. M. (2014). Understanding the relationship between physiological signals and digital game-based learning outcome. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (2012-045331).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Technology, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

    Young Ju Joo

  2. Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1310 S. 6th St., MC-708, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA

    Eunjung Oh

  3. POSCO Corporate Future Creating Academy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

    Su Mi Kim

Authors
  1. Young Ju Joo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eunjung Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Su Mi Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eunjung Oh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joo, Y.J., Oh, E. & Kim, S.M. Motivation, instructional design, flow, and academic achievement at a Korean online university: a structural equation modeling study. J Comput High Educ 27, 28–46 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9090-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9090-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation